ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SUBHAJIT CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed against order dated 5.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas in D.F. Case No. 236/2006 whereby the complaint was allowed and OPs were directed to pay to the complainant the insured estimated value of Rs. 1,50,000 along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.3.2005 till the date of realization, Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

(2.) CASE of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle from its previous registered owner and on 4.8.2004 had applied to the A.R.T.O. at Barrackpore along with all necessary documents in original for transfer/change of name of registered owner. After completion of sale confirmation from R.T.O. at Barrackpore the petitioner insured the vehicle through Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 19.11.2004 to 18.11.2005. The vehicle had been stolen by some unknown miscreants on 27.11.2004 from the custody of the driver employed by the petitioner named Shri Raju Kahar. Immediately thereafter the matter was reported to the Titagarh Police Station on 28.11.04 and a criminal case was started by the police under Section 379 of IPC. Police submitted chargesheet dated 26.7.2005 against one of the accused persons but the vehicle could not be traced out. The petitioner informed the incident to the Insurer and lodged a claim. All the original papers of the vehicle are lying with the R.T.O., Barrackpore. The Investigator appointed by the Insurer when asked for, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents and intimated that the original documents of the vehicle are lying with the A.R.T.O. at Barrackpore. The OP2 by a letter asked petitioner to submit documents in original, knowing that those cannot be collected by the petitioner from the R.T.O. without cooperation of Insurance Company. Fate of the claim has not been intimated to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the complaint claiming insured value of Rs. 1,50,000, compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 10,000.

(3.) MR . P. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the Appellant contended that the Petitioner/Respondent could not satisfy the registration of the vehicle in his name and the original documents relating to the vehicle were not produced although was called upon and, therefore, the OP could not settle the claim. In the circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/Insurer. Accordingly the impugned judgment should be set aside.